text:
Q: Revit plugin DLLs downloaded from my GitHub don´t work. The ones compiled in my machine load fine Sorry for the long title, I´ll try to be brief.
I have developed a collection of IExternalCommands for Revit 2020 using C# and Visual Studio. Also an IExternalApplication for a ribbon to contain them.
They work like charm in my computer.
I am using GitHub to store the project and I am testing what another person would need to do in order to install my plugins:

*

*Downloading the DLLs from GitHub into my computer.

*Copying the necessary .dlls and .addin files in one of the Revit addins folder %programdata%/Autodesk/...etc.

*I open my Revit... my surprise is that I get the following error:

System.IO.FileLoadException
Could not load file or assembly
'file:///C:\ProgrammData\Autodesk\ApplicationPlugin...\ArpRibbon.dll' or one of its dependencies. Operation is not supported. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x80131515)

But if I use the DLLs that have been compiled locally in my machine... it works! How is that possible? Does anyone know what am I doing wrong? I have been searching but can´t find anyone with a similar problem.
Many thanks in advance.

A: As from comment:
Just a thought, but the file is loaded from internet. Maybe windows security mechanism kicks in. Can you browse to the file with explorer and right click to see it properties? There might be some security details there about disabling access due to external dll.
This indeed proved to be the case.

A: You can mark the question as answered by copying Stefan's comment into an answer and confirming that it solves the issue:
Just a thought, but the file is loaded from internet. Maybe windows security mechanism kicks in. Can you browse to the file with explorer and right click to see it properties? There might be some security details there about disabling access due to external dll. – Stefan 17 hours ago
Thank you both for your quick responses. The issue was exactly what @Stefan suggested. There was a security message in the properties file saying: "This file came from another computer and might be blocked to help protect this computer." And then an *Unblock" checkbox. I unblocked the dll and it worked. In my case I was downloading the files with google Chrome. Many thanks again! How can I mark the question as answered? – angelrps 4 hours ago


text:
Three nuclear science deniers express their concerns about climate science denial
November 17, 2016 By Rod Adams 60 Comments
A major reason that climate change skepticism has captured a strong foothold in the United States is that many of climate activists are illogical and inconsistent.
They profess grave concern about climate change and call it one of the greatest threats to human civilization on Earth. They adamantly refuse to critically consider the usefulness of nuclear science and technology to serve as major tools in the struggle to slow CO2 emissions.
They plug their collective ears when nuclear specialists try to explain that costs and schedules are not fixed, but fixable with practice, experience and enabling regulatory treatment.
For practical minded Americans, anyone who cries "Wolf" while repeatedly refusing an offered shotgun cannot be very worried about the wolf.
Here is the first clip in a series from the Tuesday November 15 episode of Democracy Now!
The story features three of the most visible climate change activists in the world. Conversation participants include Daniel Kammen from the University of California Berkeley and a science envoy for the US State Department, Amy Goodman, the lead journalist at Democracy Now!, and Asad Rehman from Friends of the Earth International.
Here is the line up of the remainder of the clips that portray President-elect Trump as a climate change denier.
Democracy Now Nov 15, 2016
Segments expressing concerns about Trump's effect on the climate
The transcripts of the discussion do not include a single use of the word "nuclear." The climate change advocates, who frequently accuse others of denying science, are overlooking the fact that Trump's inner circle of advisors include several who know that it is within the power of the President to take actions that can enable nuclear energy to contribute to a hugely effective CO2 and air pollution reduction program.
These visible and deeply concerned advocates are worried about the long term effects of a Trump Administration, but if the newly elected President lowers the barriers that have been created during the past four decades with the quietly stated purpose of slowing nuclear energy development, it could help him lead the most successful administration in history at reducing both air pollution and the carbon dioxide intensity of US energy production. It's not necessary to be a believer to be an achiever.
As the US succeeds as a nuclear technology and services developer, there is little doubt that the products created will be marketed around the world. That marketing effort will help others achieve similar emissions and pollution reductions.
Filed Under: Climate change, rhetoric, Solar energy, Unreliables, Wind energy
One of the "greens" commented that that purpose of wind power is to "kill nuclear". I believe that I read the comment on the master resourse website. That may or may not be a typical attitude of wind power supporters. Intermittently was expected to help kill nuclear along with preferential treatment by governments.
Bill…is this what you are referring to?
http://reneweconomy.com.au/forbes-did-tesla-just-kill-nuclear-power-34523/
Your comment interests me. I hope you can nail it down to who said it, and when.
BTW, on the last thread, you asked a question. You answer can be found here…
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/trumps-bogus-voter-fraud-claims/
Jim Hopf says
Well, there's this report by the famous NASA climate scientist James Hansen (one of the main figures responsible raising the alarm about global warming, and starting the movement to do something about it, i.e., someone who genuinely cares about the issue):
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140221_DraftOpinion.pdf
If you look at the bottom of page 11, he makes the following statement:
"The asymmetry finally hit me over the head when a renewable energy advocate told me that the main purpose of renewable portfolio standards (RPS) was to "kill nuclear"."
If you read the rest, around that page, you will see how these "environmentalists" knew that renewables' very intermittency would make them even more effective at attacking nuclear plant economics, and that the result would be nuclear's replacement with a combination of gas and renewables (as opposed to renewables only).
It all makes clear that their hatred of nuclear trumps all else. It is clear that given a choice between fossil and nuclear, they will happily opt for fossil. As much as they blather about global warming and how serious it is (e.g., "the biggest environmental problem we face"), their actions make clear that they consider nuclear's "problems" far MORE serious than global warming, not to mention the air pollution from fossil generation that kills several hundred thousand people every year.
See…thats what bugs me about the assertion. The statement seems to be attributed to "them", rather than, "….on sept 8th, during a conversation with Carlyle Clampanpoof, he said…."
I strongly distrust assertions attributed to "them", "whathisname", and "soandso". Particularly from a community that should be particularly mindful of solid evidence and sourcing when making assertions, accusations, and historical accounts. "Soandso said…yadayadayada…" just doesn't cut it.
@ poa
Agreed. "Us" vs "Them" hasn't gotten either them or us very far. One positive advantage of careful attribution, is it allows one of "us" — perhaps years later — to interview a specifically identified one of "them" along the lines "Seventeen years ago you stated "[blank]". In light of complete and utter lack of progress since then, and the historically demonstrated efficacy of nuclear power to reduce power emissions to the required levels, is there any part of your earlier remark you might now, with the benefit of hindsight, like to re-visit?"
Gives "them" a chance to exert common leadership if they so desire, rather than hide behind complacent anonymity.
James Richard Tyrer says
Can this desire to "kill" nuclear power be the reason that Greens appear to have no interest in Enhanced Geothermal Power which is not intermittent?
@Jimes Richard Tyrer
Greens also fight against large scale, reservoir-based hydroelectricity. It is also reliable, on-demand power that displaces the need to burn fossil fuel as long as there is adequate precipitation.
"Run of the river" systems harken back to the early days of water wheel driven mills, before the engineers supporting millers figured out that mill ponds were a useful addition to their productive ability.
Here's an interesting historical tidbit that has some modern parallels. Licenses or concessions to use the creeks, streams and rivers to power mills were tightly controlled by the hereditary aristocracy. That authority helped lords & barons sustain their control over the peasant farmers that needed their wheat to be ground before it could be of any real use to the final customers.
I believe that it was about two years ago that I read the statement. I wish that I had bookmarked it at the time but I didn't.
I'm pretty sure the article Jim posted is the one the I saw previously. It referred to rps rather than wind specifally as designed to "kill nuclear".
I think that nuclear has a bad rap largely because of the weapons issue.
I think that it's unfortunate that fission was discovered right before ww2 rather than a peaceful period.
On another issue I agree with your criticism of Israel. The attack on the USS Liberty was certainly criminal. To their credit some pilots refused to take part in the attack if what I read is true.
POA, we may disagree on the issue of renewables but I agree with you that Israel should be investigated for war crimes. They have certainly gotten a free ride with regard to the attack on the USS Liberty (among other things). Iran has just as much right to nuclear energy as any other country. I hope that Trump is more even handed than his campaign rhetoric indicates that he will be.
"For practical minded Americans, anyone who cries "Wolf" while repeatedly refusing an offered shotgun cannot be very worried about the wolf"
For about the sixth time, I've read this essay Rod offers, and keep coming back to the same conclusion. Basically, what I believe Rod is saying….
John Q has a disbelief of climate change because those climate change activists are not saying "nuclear energy is a solution".
Well, such a premise, it seems to me, is specious at best. For Rod's assertion to be true, two implausable assumptions must be made. First, that John Q views NE favorably, and second, due to this favorable sentiment, John Q actually considers NE as a solution to climate change. Ergo, John Q sees that the climate change activists are not stating the obvious when offering their arguments.
Far more likely, if one assumes that John Q is skeptical of man made climate change, such a mindset has been implanted by their media exposure, which really has kept NE out of the debate, and narrative.
But, has it been established that John Q is skeptical of man made climate change, in the first place? I don't think so. Rather than "climate change skepticism has captured a strong foothold in the United States", as Rod proposes, I would opine that the political narrative, given voice by right wing media, is expressing skepticism to forward an energy agenda favorable to fossil fuel. Whether or not John Q is swallowing it, is debatable.
Apparently, by a very slight margin, the John Q skeptics in the United States are in the minority.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/18/what-the-world-thinks-about-climate-change-in-7-charts/
However, making the assumption that these skeptics have become skeptical because they view NE as a solution being ignored by activists, is a real stretch.
Do you really believe that the public, including the more educated have carefully examined the evidence for and against global warming and through rigorous application of logic and scientific reasoning have accepted the GW hypothesis? Or have they simply accepted what they have heard?
And who trusts polls anymore?
"Do you really believe that the public, including the more educated have carefully examined the evidence for and against global warming and through rigorous application of logic and scientific reasoning have accepted the GW hypothesis?"
Absolutely not. And a couple of times, on this blog, I have stated such. For the overwhelming majority of us John Qs, our opinion of climate change is based on media exposure, and political bias. And political bias also, I believe, shapes our politician's stated opinions on climate change. I doubt whether they believe in man made climate change, or not, has anything to do with what they actually say to the public about it. It is a matter of political standing, rather than science based opinion.
So, for myself, a number of very unscientific factors shape my belief in climate change, and global warming. First, common sense tells me you can't pollute the atmosphere in a bubble, and not expect a negative effect. Oversimplistic?? Well, sometimes the simple thought is the correct one. Secondly, I believe, (perhaps without foundation, because it is an opinion formed entirely by my media exposure), that the majority of climatologists accept climate change, and global warming, as fact. Given the choice between politicians and global corporate fossil fuel naysayers, versus climatologists, in my opinion it doesn't require a doctorate degree to know who to believe. And, perhaps the biggest reason a belief in global warming seems the right choice for me, is my firm conviction, that for my daughter's sake, and generations to come, we have a responsibility to err on the side of caution when it comes to our planet's health and well being.
I responded, Fermi, politely. Anyone's guess whether my comment will appear.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-high.aspx
An excerpt….
"PRINCETON, N.J. — Americans are taking global warming more seriously than at any time in the past eight years, according to several measures in Gallup's annual environment poll. Most emblematic is the rise in their stated concern about the issue. Sixty-four percent of U.S. adults say they are worried a "great deal" or "fair amount" about global warming, up from 55% at this time last year and the highest reading since 2008."
In other news, President-Elect Hillary Clinton announced….
I get the point of your sarcasm, Fermi. But you being a skeptic, and a nuclear energy advocate, I think that your gloating is premature. Frankly, as the administration gathers momentum, I think the least of our worries is going to be climate change, or if NE is boosted or ignored by the Trump administration. There will be far more disastrous, and immediate, emergencies for us to worry about.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-scientists-react-to-potus-trump.html
Do you really believe that Myron Ebell, a longtime fossil fuel industry insider, whose degree is in economics, has no science credentials, and is a rabid global warming denialist, has carefully examined the evidence for and against global warming and through rigorous application of logic and scientific reasoning?
At least the economic aspects. Which is more than I can say for most in the discussion. I have to admit he's no Leonardo DiCaprio.
And so far, global warming been "berry, berry good to" the fossil fuel industry (natural gas).
Just a general question that I think is relevant to the topic at hand:
For those that accept the hypothesis that human activities that increase greenhouse gases have been responsible for global warming and that these activities will lead to catastrophic global warming in the future unless curtailed, what would it take to conclude otherwise? Is it even possible for you to conclude otherwise?
Jim L. says
I believe it would be useful for both skeptics and those with an open mind to consider Dr. Evan's work concerning climate models: http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html
There are short summaries available, and also a very detailed and long series of posts showing how Dr. Evan's has concluded their are built-in errors in EVERYBODY's model… and the fixes that he believes should be made.
Evan's has posited his own fix to the model and used it to make very different predictions. These predictions will either validate or falsify his model and this should occur in the next couple of years.
Wherever you fall in the climate spectrum, I think this is worth visiting. I like that he has made falsifiable predictions that will occur in the short term. And as a side note – he has submitted his work for publication and has stated he expects it to be published.
My problems with the models is that:
They are benchmarked "tuned" to replicate climate data that is increasingly uncertain the farther back in time one goes.
There can't be any controlled experiments such as the LOFT or SemiScale tests for nuclear power plant design codes. There is only one climate data history.
The models are continuously improved to reduce biases and errors apparent in comparisons between model results and the real world data since the models went "live". However, when this is done, should the comparison be reset to begin with the present? Otherwise we are retaking the test after seeing the answer key.
Some climate phenomena operate in cycles that take decades to complete. How can a climate model provide results exclusive to CO2 increase without accounting for variances in natural cycles?
Which partly is why climatologists prefer (or insist) upon something like 10-year sliding window averages when looking at temperature trends.
My problem with models is that most of us try to defend them against those who don't believe them.
Defend them exclusively, I mean.
By 1905 Svante Arrhenius had shown that any increase in ghg would of necessity result in global warming, had deduced the logarithmic nature, and estimated a 4C/doubling climate sensitivity.
By 1965 — a scant sixty years — there was enough modeling and empirical evidence to convince most climatologists that not only was Arrhenius right, it was actually happening.
Note the "empirical evidence". Dr. Hansen got his start (and his name) modeling planetary atmospheres. Yet it was the paleoclimatic record, at the time mainly Oxygen isotope ratio proxies from ice cores, that validated his models and prompted his 1986 testimony before Congress.
Where he stressed the Keeling data and the paleoclimatic record, not the models.
If, by 1965 most climatologists thought that global warming was real, what accounts for the concern about global cooling in the 1970's?
@ FermiAged:
Q: "what accounts for the concern about global cooling in the 1970's?"
A: Natural variation. Amongst scientists.
It never amounted to much, about 10% of the publications over a period that saw 62% predicting warming.
That's the short answer. Yet there are those who latch onto those 10% with the same tenacity as they latch onto today's 3. The fascinating question (to me) is
Please see Skeptical Science Myth 11: Ice Age Predicted in the 70s and
The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
2008 T.C. Peterson (NOAA), W.M. Connolley (British Antarctic Survey), and John Fleck (Albuquerque Journal).
John Fleck's contribution must be appreciated: Myth of the Consensus is refreshingly brief and readable. Connolley maintains the album version here.
Four days ago, I asked what possible evidence would convince you that the "consensus" on global warming is incorrect or at least exaggerated. I was not looking for actual evidence that the consensus is wrong but was interested if it was even possible to falsify the consensus.
Apparently, it is impossible to conceive of any hypothetical evidence that would disprove the global warming hypothesis. Which is why it has taken on a religious, cult-like aspect including using the term "denier" for the unconvinced.
For me, if several physics-based climate models were able to replicate the future climate for 50 years without any tuning other than to adjust for actual human emissions of CO2, I would have to accept the hypothesis. Until that happens, it is a hypothesis. There would still remain the question of the consequences.
There are several excellent reasons to support nuclear power and reduce reliance on fossil fuels including safety, environmental quality, reliability, diversity of energy sources and economics.
Apparently, it is impossible to conceive of any hypothetical evidence that would disprove the global warming hypothesis.
You obviously ignored my response to you.
@Jim:
Dr. Evans article is just total nonsense, starting from a false premise and leading to a pre-conceived — and utterly incorrect — conclusion.
Please. Water vapor was identified as the principle green house gas by John Tyndall in 1860. It has played a central role in every single climate discussion and model ever since. Including Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
For Dr. Evans to claim otherwise is either irresponsible, or incompetent. His choice.
My go-to reference is AIP historian Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming. I highly recommend it to anyone who desires an appreciation of just how complex the topic is, and just how mind-boggling competent the individuals who have contributed actually are.
My understanding is that Evans does agree with water vapor as a greenhouse gas, nowhere does he say differently, but he is saying that the water vapor rises higher due to the greater retained heat, and thus gets to the altitude where the heat is radiated out to space. Hence, it is a "pipeline" for heat to escape the atmosphere versus being retained. Or at least that is what I recall.
@ Jim L.
Dr. Evans' does indeed agree water vapor is a greenhouse gas, I didn't intend to impugn otherwise. My objection is that Dr. Evans seems to think he has some penetrating new insight that has been totally lost on all climate scientists since 1905. This is simply not the case.
I've neither time nor inclination to investigate Dr. Evans' every claim. His introductory "Main Messages" section reads as one massive non-sequitur, and suggests that for 111 years climate scientist have overlooked properties of water vapor that in fact they have not.
"Crucial observations from the last few decades indicate that the heat radiated to space from water vapor has been increasing slightly, suggesting that the effect of rerouting (which lowers the water vapor emission layer) was outweighed by the effect of water vapor amplification due to the surface warming (which raises it)."
No. Just plain no. The altitude of the water vapor emission layer determines the tropopause, the nominal boundary between the moist troposphere and the bone-dry stratosphere.
As we all witness, tropospheric temperature decreases with altitude. But in the stratosphere temperature increases.with height. The tropopause is the inflection point. And it has been steadily falling, not rising. See Figure 5.
This lowering of the tropopause is such a key indicator that global warming is being driven by CO2 increase — not solar insolation increase or albedo decrease or lack of vulcanism or too many magic mushrooms — that Fred Singer and his collaborators launched a highly personal attack on Ben Santer for measuring it.
(Oreskes and Conway, Merchants of Doubt pp 200-215.)
But I digress. Dr. Evans is not claiming that global warming is not happening, nor that CO2 drives it. Only that climate sensitivity to CO2 increase far smaller than what the GCM models predict.
Which ignores that what GCM models predict is, in fact, largely irrelevant. We can predict climate sensitivity entirely from the paleoclimatic record, and first principles of ghg thermodynamics.
And we can then make that prediction, using data from a single glacial-interglacial transition, across the entire pleistocene: see James Hansen, Storms of my Grandchildren, pages 44 – 47, beginning with
"Fortunately, Earth's history allows precise evaluation of climate sensitivity without using climate models. This approach is suggested by the fact that some feedback processes occur much more rapidly than others."
If you haven't a copy, by all means get one. Meantime illustrations are available online: see Figure 4,
which uses an empirically observed 3 C sensitivity for doubling of CO2. This is pure observation: all water vapor effects are included over the time scales involved, whatever their actual physical mechanism.
It bears repeating: those who whine about climate models and uncertainties in their sensitivities prediction are dragging a red herring. Yes, details can be important and over decadal and century time scales GCM predictions can be useful inputs to Integrated Assessment Models. But they do not predict our fate. That is sealed by measurements and simple physics.
John ONeill says
I read most of Dr Evans' series of posts a year or so back ( note, he's a doctor in electrcical engineering, not climate physics )
I don't have a doctorate in anything, but I know that the glaciers here are retreating pretty fast, just over my lifetime. I'm pretty sure the ski seasons have changed too.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html
Evans has a number of bets with Professor Brian Schmidt, head of Australian National University and American-born Nobel laureate, against the earth warming by more than 0.15 C per decade, over various time scales, as judged by Gistemp. ( I think it's Evan's $6,000 versus Schmidt's $9,000. ) The ten-year wager is due to mature in 2017.
he is saying that the water vapor rises higher due to the greater retained heat, and thus gets to the altitude where the heat is radiated out to space.
That is actually part of the problem. High clouds are cold clouds which radiate poorly and block IR in windows which otherwise allow radiation to space. Low clouds are warm, radiate well and reflect more energy than they trap.
in the stratosphere temperature increases.with height. The tropopause is the inflection point. And it has been steadily falling, not rising. See Figure 5.
This lowering of the tropopause is such a key indicator
That is not what Figure 5 indicates. It indicates falling stratospheric temperatures, not tropopause altitude. The heavier the GHG inventory, the more the atmosphere must thin out before the IR windows to space open up (thicker convective layer) and the HIGHER the tropopause will be.
The heavier the GHG inventory, the more the atmosphere must thin out before the IR windows to space open up (thicker convective layer) and the HIGHER the tropopause will be.
Damn. (Eyeballs simple back-of-envelope sketch). You're right of course. From simple geometric consideration alone. Stratosphere temperature increases with height. Troposphere decreases. Increased water vapor heats the troposphere. If stratosphere were constant, that would raise tropopause, both elevation and temperature.
But increased CO2 cools stratosphere. Were troposphere constant, that would also raise tropopause altitude, but at lower temperature.
Either singly or in combination, water and/or CO2 ghg increase raises tropopause. In combination the actual tropopause temperature isn't so clear. Nor as important.
You're welcome. Just one of those things, but the clearer our thinking and understanding on all of this is, the better off we'll ALL be.
And that includes me when I make a thinko.
For those that accept the hypothesis that human activities that increase greenhouse gases have been responsible for global warming and that these activities will lead to catastrophic global warming in the future unless curtailed, what would it take to conclude otherwise?
I'm going to dispute "will lead to". Even a significant likelihood would require preventive action.
To change my position would require:
1. A demonstration that increasing GHGs does not increase the surface-level downwelling IR from the atmosphere. (Can't demonstrate it, because it does.)
2. A demonstration that increases in downwelling IR are offset by other effects which mantain the net energy balance. (Seems very far-fetched.)
3. Proof positive that increasing the Earth's temperature beyond what it would normally be at this point in the climate cycle will have no untoward effects. Given that we are seeing unprecedented migration of the viable climactic zones for many important ecosystems, the rapid disappearance of Arctic sea ice, several major Antarctic ice shelves already gone (when the cycles suggest they should be growing) and the beginnings of the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet already visible, that doesn't even pass the laugh test.
This does not include direct effects from CO2, such as the dissolution of corals in the Florida Keys from acidification.
Is it even possible for you to conclude otherwise?
Maybe you can come up with weightier evidence than the evidence I just laid out. I don't see how, though.
The amount of heat radiated by a black body increases in proportion to the fourth power of the absolute temperature. Latent heat from condensation resultes in convection. Once virtually all of the water has condensed you have reached the upper limit ofthe troposphere. Although the atmosphere is not a black body it might approximate a fourth power law.
Have you ever read "Defeating the Son of Andrew"? I once thought that this would be a good idea, but after learning more about cloud effects and understanding that convection towers would dump massive amounts of warm, saturated air into sub-freezing levels some 4-5 miles up, I started to wonder about the indirect radiative effects and if they might trap more heat than the towers dump.
This is way beyond my pay grade. Maybe somebody with a good convective/radiative model could take a stab at it.
Back on-topic, there have been numerous statistical studies comparing various ways to frame the issue of anthropogenic global warming, and the effects of the different frames upon various social groups' acceptance of the underlying science. A stunning visual is afforded in an overview and compendium the Breakthrough Institute made a few years back: The Psychology of Climate Change.
Scroll down to (the somewhat ambiguously titled) "Nuclear Power As Climate Solution Increases Concern for Global Warming" and cogitate upon the mirrored "V" curves of the 2nd Risk Perception graphic… 🙂
I agree. However I would like to see a carbon tax which would not pick winners and losers among non carbon energy sources. The revenue might be used to help people with medical problems pay their utility bills.
My post was misplaced. Is was in response to "glad Trump doesn't like wind"by Mark Pawelek.
Glad to read Trump does not like wind. Here is a tweet he made on Apr 25, 2014, to Alex Salmond, then leader of the Scottish National Party:
"Isn't it ironic that China is going all in nuclear for energy while at the same time making wind turbines for others. @alexsalmond"
More Trump tweets here, mostly on Scotland & hated wind power. http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/donald-trump-reveals-opinion-of-scotland-through-twitter-1-4291039
I changed my mind. I side with climate change skeptics now. That does not mean I think CO2 has no effect. It means I suspect CO2 climate sensitivity is between 0.5 and 1. I expect no 'amplification' effect at all. Economically: detrimental effects of sea level rise will be more than balanced by a massive global greening. The other worrying issue is "ocean acidification".
Stopping, or slowing, ocean acidification is the only pro-nuclear environment argument I would try using with Trump's administration. Nuclear power also gives excellent supply security because USA can get uranium from Canada, and can store stockpiles.
Republicans have not supported public investment in advanced nuclear power for a long time. More republicans voted to defund the IFR in 1994 than Dems. Still, it's not as if advanced nuclear is lavishly funded by Dems. I think you should try to convince the Trump administration of keep support for new nuclear power. Modular and advanced reactors. Deregulate. Drop Federal tax credits or other support for actual generation. Let states help with generation if they want to.
Just wondering – Let's suppose al those scientists are wrong and global warming / climate change aren't real.
Has that number of scientists from their many different specialties been wrong about anything else of this magnitude? They all seem to agree. What examples are there? When does it go from scientific theory to scientific fact? How much empirical evidence does one need?
"How much empirical evidence does one need?"
Enough to render political denial and BS, (such as Ebell and the Trump Administration is going to feed us, in league with "big oil"), no longer a feasable strategy with which to hoodwink the masses.
In order for Trump to prostitute himself to the fossil fuel industry, on the scale he has promised…
He MUST deny global warming, and, do his best to convince YOU that the premise of global warming is a hoax and a conspiracy. He will probably leave a legacy of a disastrous foreign policy, perhaps colored by an unecessary and major war of his own making. But in terms of a legacy that has the potential to be historical and epic, slamming shut a window of opportunity, (in regards to our climate and our planet's health), may well be the one he is most remembered and loathed for.
Pu239 says
The reason reasonable people are skeptical is that's a good approach to science theory. Show me your theory? Oh, it's a very complex computer model of everything. No one person could possibly understand. Show me your accurate predictions matching data from controlled experiments? We can't do big enough controlled experiments, but we've run thousands of global simulations, and some match limited past data over selected time periods, … hem and haw… We have dozens of future predictions, and some may match future results. If they don't, we can adjust assumptions so at least a couple will, retroactively. But everyone can see we're getting warmer, on average and *almost* everywhere, by a tiny amount.
This interpreted data shows CO2 clearly lagging temperature change, before man:
( http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html )
I'm willing to listen to anyone, but have you noticed the people who urge fear and policy action are usually not actually "climate scientists," but are usually policy and economics specialists, or other more "arts" types?
The scientists, if we ever hear them, couch statements behind "confidence" feelings, the possibility of bad outcomes, and always a need for more funding to refine models.
We cannot even agree on a "good" model, based on data and science, to accurately predict the effects of increased exposures to low level radiation doses. How can global climate science possibly be anywhere near "settled" as many people repeat like a mantra?
Anyway, what's so bad about longer growing seasons, milder winters, more rain, and less building along coasts and waterways? Fukushima and Fort Calhoun would've been a lot better off if they'd been built higher and drier. Chernobyl, not so much, but at least it displaced some CO2 emissions, for a while.
@Pu239:
Again, this is wrong. Just plain wrong. While being factually correct, that during the Pleistocene glaciations CO2 increase lagged temperature rise is another red herring. It does not tell the complete story. Orbital cycles did trigger glaciation cycles – in both directions – during this time and this continent configuration and this particular CO2 range or biosphere content. Doesn't help us any today. Please see Skeptical Science Myth 12: CO2 lags temperature.
Comparing biological effects of low-level radiation to climate change science is just classic false equivalence, a complete non-sequitur.
I've previously commented upon unwarranted model fixation here. Climate models are very useful, and help project for instance the short term (decadal, century) climate effects of various Representative Concentration Pathways, whose results in turn feed back into Integrated (economic) Assessment Models to provide insight into the future effects of various economic and policy choices.
To this end it is very important that climate models be able to track historical climate trends from historical data, and there is indeed a whole sub-science of tuning variously poorly established parameters to ensure they do. There are also extremely good reasons why we do not choose (or agree) to use any one particular model. Climate is just too complex. No one model can capture the Whole Thing. We obtain projections from large ensembles of different models, each run at many different physically reasonable sets of parameter values within physically realistic error bars.
Then look at the ensemble results, and compare the hindcast results with the historical record. If they reasonably match, we figure our forecasts are on the right track. If not, there are calls for further introspection.
See Real Climate's Unforced variations: Aug 2016 for graphical illustration. And The art and science of climate model tuning (pre-publication draft) for an expert critique of the sausage factory.
Above all, please do not dismiss models as the entire story. They are not. Climate science is observational as well, and it is observational data that fix the overall short-term climate sensitivity at about 3 C / per doubling CO2, and determine our fate. Not the models.
@Ed Leaver,
It's not, or you misunderstand the intent of the comparison. Rod recently compared LNT estimates of harm from NOX emissions with LNT estimates of harm from radiation doses. It's a comparison of approach and method, and complexity, and pointing out the difficulty of making more accurate estimates. We agree they're different phenomena, but one is a much easier problem, and it is still beyond our capability as a species. The other is more difficult, and farther beyond our capability. It's not equivalence, it's judgment.
"… it is observational data that fix the overall short-term climate sensitivity at about 3 C / per doubling CO2…"
Short-term thumbrules fail because unexpected long-term feedbacks or other unexpected factors have impacts. This rate may be true assuming particulates from China are below some amount; assuming China, Russia, the US, or others do not take action to engineer climate changes; assuming less than X major volcano eruptions; assuming no nuclear wars (remember nuclear winter); assuming no huge, uncontrolled fires; and on and on.
In the short-term, prompt-critical nuclear assemblies increase temperature at a high rate per short time. In the long-term, something stops them. Most natural phenomena do eventually.
Your later link to "psychology" is appropriate. Discussing climate change and what to do about it, is more like discussing population growth, abortions, and what to do about it. It really comes down to how people feel about them and politics, not some mathematical or scientific proof. You want to use the "underlying science" to advocate your preferred technology, but no matter how much you repeat the mantra, the science is not really settled yet. People have much bigger problems, like poverty and wars, and associated migrations.
This interpreted data shows CO2 clearly lagging temperature change, before man
Because in the natural regime, the Milankovic cycles start the temperature changes which amplify via CO2 (and perhaps other) feedbacks. We are not in the natural regime any more, we are in the Anthropocene. Adding man-made GHGs is a different driver but has the same effect.
have you noticed the people who urge fear and policy action are usually not actually "climate scientists,"
Most scientists don't want to get involved in politics.
but are usually policy and economics specialists, or other more "arts" types?
Have you bothered to distinguish them by the kind of policy action they're pushing? Global redistribution of wealth, massive migrant flows… that is the international socialist wagon that the same clowns have been trying to hitch to every horse for the last century.
Ignore those people (if you can't jail them). Hansen, Environmental Progress, Breakthrough Institute… all are pushing nuclear power.
what's so bad about longer growing seasons
When they move the climactic zone that your present ecosystem evolved for beyond anyplace it actually exists, resulting in massive dieoffs. Also when your growing season allows more-tropical pest species to move in, like the Aedes mosquito which now carries the Zika virus.
milder winters
When it's not cold enough to kill off pine bark beetles, you lose entire forests.
IF you get it. Warmer air also evaporates raindrops as they fall, so more clouds don't water the ground at all and what rain does arrive is in heavier storms which cause erosion and flooding. Louisiana just got dumped on like that, and it was all due to warmer air that carried more moisture.
less building along coasts and waterways?
Historic landmarks and villages are already disappearing under rising seas, and some of this is happening where post-glacial rebound ought to have the water in retreat.
If you think losing harbors and port cities is A-OK, I can only SMH.
@Engineer-Poet,
"We are not in the natural regime any more, we are in the Anthropocene."
That may be of great significance to you; however, a forest cut down by "stupid" men to make furniture or homes is similar to a forest cut down by "pine bark beetles" from a remote perspective, say from Mars. The etymology of "natural" is interesting.
"Historic landmarks and villages are already disappearing under rising seas"
Name 1 or 2 dozen which are truly *disappearing* from "rising seas" and not other things like "natural" erosion, or predicted to eventually disappear if nothing is done? Average water level increases, measured from space, at rates maybe an inch or so per year, give PLENTY of time for migrations with less urgency than from war zones.
That may be of great significance to you; however, a forest cut down by "stupid" men to make furniture or homes is similar to a forest cut down by "pine bark beetles" from a remote perspective
No it isn't. It is one thing to remove trees and let them re-grow. It is a completely different thing to change the climate so that trees cannot survive.
I'm anything but a specialist so I don't keep comprehensive lists, but here's a few to keep you busy.
USA, Louisiana: [http://grist.org/climate-energy/louisiana-is-drowning-quickly/}
USA, Alaska: [http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/alaska-village-climate-change/402604/]
USA, Florida: [http://grist.org/cities/miami-sea-level-rise-climate-change]
USA, 8 of 10 top coastal cities: [http://www.terradaily.com/reports/NOAA_Nuisance_flooding_an_increasing_problem_as_coastal_sea_levels_rise_999.html]
Village of Fairbourne in Wales going under: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3442264/Welsh-village-decommissioned-warnings-lost-sea.html]
Much of the Welsh coastline in similar straits: [http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/wales-major-coastal-towns-cities-10496070]
5 of the Solomon Islands already disappeared under the Pacific: [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-level-rise-swallows-5-whole-pacific-islands/]
Average water level increases, measured from space, at rates maybe an inch or so per year, give PLENTY of time for migrations
River deltas are some of the most fertile land on the planet. When they go underwater, they are GONE on the timescale of civilizations. Everything they once produced, whether crops or timber, is lost. Upland acreage is already occupied and far less productive.
You can ignore this reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring it.
"It is one thing to remove trees and let them re-grow. It is a completely different thing to change the climate so that trees cannot survive."
Like you know for certain that forests lost to pine beetles can *never* return. If you've ever seen what remains after massive de-foresting, many years later, you might think differently about the comparison. Yes, it is technically two different things; however, we have done the former on a massive scale, and similar forests with similar environment have not returned.
"but here's a few to keep you busy."
Not for long. Your first example supports my position more than yours. That is, the current problems in Louisiana are from unintended consequences of shorter term development, and not from longer term climate change. Did you even read more than the headline? I recognized the last item on your list – it blames disappearing islands on erosion. No need to waste any more time.
"When they go underwater, they are GONE on the timescale of civilizations."
Except people have a long history of reclaiming land from water, for many purposes. It's a question of return on investment or cost/benefit.
You've probably heard of the relatively recent Chinese extensions to the Spratly Islands that are causing fears of confrontations and possibly nuclear war.
[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/30/world/asia/what-china-has-been-building-in-the-south-china-sea.html?_r=0]
Let me return the link favor, and suggest you might be interested in the many, many similar land reclamation projects in history, including for agriculture purposes:
[http://lmgtfy.com/?q=land+reclamation]
Like you know for certain that forests lost to pine beetles can *never* return.
How do you re-grow a forest, when changes in rainfall and climate killed all the trees that used to be there?
If you've ever seen what remains after massive de-foresting, many years later, you might think differently about the comparison.
But if you run goats you'll never have trees again. The emerald ash borer has killed almost every ash tree in my county. There are a handful of saplings still alive, but they'll only last until their bark gets thick enough to allow the bugs to dig in. When those are gone, that's it for the species.
Except people have a long history of reclaiming land from water, for many purposes.
The only societies with enough social capital to do this are in Western Europe and the far East. The West isn't going to be able to do that much longer with the massive inflow of people from low-trust societies; the teamwork required to keep dikes maintained and polders pumped dry will cease to exist.
As always there is a mix of factors. By including the ash borer, you've made reference to a problem blamed on imports. Invasive species are a classic problem. Man's changing of cycles of forest fires also has an impact on the spread of these insects. But, your xenophobic conclusion – while faulty and biased – agrees with my position: short-term and political problems are clearly real and higher priority.
David B. Benson says
Back to the original point, Rod Adams several weeks ago pointed out that Fiends of the Earth, misspelling intentional, was established primarily as an anti-nuclear advocacy organization.
Exactly. I feel like many of us, despite the diverse backgrounds, paths taken and beliefs have come to be on the same page here. I completely agree and acknowledge EPs post above as well.
Rod I dont think we have seen the complete Trump position on climate change. I dont even think that the package deal the term "climate change" has become is accepted as uniform across scientific and political lines. Obviously "environmentalism" has become in addition at least two rather different movements beyond the simple previous definition of the term. Just there under that term we have both ideas relevant to basic conservation of current diversity in the natural world and a complete and well developed anti human/anti technology political philosophy.
I wish I could contribute something more positive to the conversation here but I am past hope when it comes to reconciling the political differences that have crept into various venues.
Fortunately I feel we have received a reset and possibly the motivation to use this opportunity to redefine the basics in a more clear and reasonable manner.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton SE er bedre kendt under forkortelsen LVMH. Det er et fransk multinationalt konglomerat af luksusvarer med hovedkvarter i Paris i Frankrig. Selskabet blev dannet i 1987 ved sammenlægning af modehuset Louis Vuitton og Moet Hennessy, der blev til i 1971 ved en fusion af champagneproducenten Moët & Chandon og cognacproducenten Hennessy. Konglomoratet kontrollerer omkring 60 datterselskaber, der hver styrer prestigefyldte mærker. Datterselskaberne bliver ofte drevet selvstændigt. Den ældste af LVMH mærker er Château d'Yquem, der dateres til 1593.

Luksusselskabet Christian Dior er det primære holdingselskab i LVMH med en ejerandel på 40.9% af aktierne og 59.01% af stemmerne. Bernard Arnault, der har aktiemajoriteten i Dior, er formand for begge selskaber og CEO i LVMH. Arnaults heldige integrering af forskellige berømte aspirational brands i gruppen har inspireret andre luksusfirmaer til at gøre det samme. Således har det franske konglomerat Kering (tidligere PPR) og the schweizisk baserede Richemont også lavet en udvidet portfolio af luksusmærker. Firmaet er en del af aktieindekset Euro Stoxx 50.

Datterselskaber
En ufuldstændig liste med nogle af LVMH's bedst kendte mærker og datterselskaber:

 Vin og spiritus
 10 Cane
 Ardbeg
 Belvedere
 Château Cheval Blanc
 Château d'Yquem
 Cloudy Bay Vineyards
 Dom Pérignon
 Domaine Chandon California
 Hennessy
 Glenmorangie
 Krug
 Mercier
 Moët & Chandon
 Ruinart
 Veuve Clicquot
 Wenjun

 Specialforretninger
 DFS
 Le Bon Marché
 Sephora
 Starboard Cruise Services

 Mode- og lædervarer
 Berluti
 Celine
 Dior
 EDUN
 Emilio Pucci
 Fendi
 Givenchy
 Kenzo
 Marc Jacobs
 Moynat
 Loewe
 Loro Piana
 Louis Vuitton
 Nicholas Kirkwood
 Thomas Pink
 R. M. Williams
 RIMOWA
 FENTY

 Parfume og kosmetik
 Acqua di Parma
 Benefit Cosmetics LLC
 Fendi Perfumes
 Fresh Inc.
 Guerlain
 Kenzo Parfums
 Perfumes Loewe S.A.
 Make Up For Ever
 Marc Jacobs Beauty
 NUDE
 Parfums Christian Dior
 Parfums Givenchy

 Ure og smykker
 Bulgari
 Chaumet
 De Beers Diamond Jewellers
 FRED
 Hublot
 TAG Heuer
 Zenith

Make Up For Ever blev etableret i 1984. og blev købt af LVMH i 1999.

Den 7. marts 2011 annoncerede LVMH et køb på 50,4 % af den familieejede italienske smykkevirksomhed Bulgari og intention om at byde på resten, der var offentligt ejet. Prisen var omkring $5,2& mia..
I 2011 investerede LVMH $640 mio i at etablere LCapitalAsia.

Den 7. marts 2013 rapporterede National Business Daily, at tøjmærket QDA ville åbne butikker med LVMHs hjælp og LCapitalAsia det kinesiske tøjfirma Xin Hee Co., Ltd. i Beijing. LVMH's salg i Kina "faldt omkring 10 % fra 2011" og LVMH stoppede med at "åbne butikker i anden og tredje-niveaus byer i Kina". Xue Shengwen, forsker på ChinaVenture, udtalte at udviklingen af markedet var mere acceptable priser.

I februar 2014 påbegyndte LMVH et joint venture med det italienske modemærke Marco De Vincenzo og fik 45 % af aktierne.

Referencer

Konglomerater fra Frankrig
Etableret i 1987

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Whenever we rescue a "signature" or "friendship" quilt of an unknown origin, the story of it is left to our imaginations. Such is the case with this simple, but elegant hand quilted signature quilt from 1931.
There is no label to tell us about the recipient or the occasion for which it was made.
It was recently (Feb 2011) purchased a few miles outside of Lubbock in the South Plains region of West Texas. When the owner was asked about it, he said he knew very little about it. He said that "Mother's people" came from eastern New Mexico around the Lovington area and that his father used it until he passed away.
I suspect that it might be an ancestor's wedding quilt. The signature in the upper left corner of the quilt is that of "Mother Strong." That just seems to me to be how a lady might sign a quilt to be given to her new daughter-in-law. Every block has a signature, and some are those of men. If only we could step back in time and see the get-togethers where they gathered the blocks or worked on the quilt.
This quilt has beautiful hand quilting in a simple straight-line design. The backing is brought over the front to make a binding. The batting is cotton, and my imagination suggests that it was grown on a farm in that agricultural community. There are many cotton hulls imbedded in the batting. They are not normally visible, but were easily seen during the bath this quilt was given when I got it home.
This quilt shows just the right amount of wear - the solid color blocks are a little faded, and the batting is slightly lumpy in places, but it was cared for and loved by a family for 80 years, and now I am privileged to have it in my care!
Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How? Simply click here to return to Share Your Vintage Quilts.


No visit to the Florida Keys was complete without stopping at THEATRE OF THE SEA.
Billed as "The World's Second Oldest Marine Life Park", this attraction opened to the public in the late 40's on Windley Key at Islamorada.
Unlike other marine attractions where you observed dolphins and sea life in steel-and-concrete tanks, the finny residents of THEATRE OF THE SEA lived together in a huge, outdoor lagoon.
That lagoon was created in the 1930's when Henry Flagler built "The Railroad That Went To Sea". The trestles to support the tracks on its way to Key West were built on pilings made of limestone rock quarried from Windley Key. Over the years, the quarry became filled with seawater so an enterprising entrepreneur decided to stock it with dolphins, sharks, sea turtles and other species of marine life for the public to enjoy.
Back in the 'Golden Days' of Florida tourism, attractions had a gimmick.
While Silver Springs in Ocala had their "World Famous Glass Bottom Boats", THEATRE OF THE SEA had "The Bottomless Boat".
This was a pontoon boat with a hole in its hull where you could observe the marine life through the clear water. The dolphins would leap alongside the boat and come up inside the hull to greet you.
Gimmicks like that tickle this writer!
My first visit to THEATRE OF THE SEA took place in 1976 while I was working for Sea World. My co-worker, marine biologist JIM MAYER and I were on our way to Marathon to pick up a shark from Gerry and Mary Lou Klay of SharkQuarium.
Since neither of us had ever been to this Florida Keys attraction, we decided to stop and have a look.
The park personnel welcomed us and gave us a most interesting tour of this unique marine attraction.
The highlight of my visit was when I received a kiss from their sea lions, 'Phelps' and 'Kelpie'. The audience screamed with delight when 'Kelpie' swam through the water with her flipper sticking out imitating a shark fin while the theme music of "Jaws" was played!
I saw this behavior repeated years later at Sea World . . . I smiled knowing that another trainer had conditioned it.
THEATRE OF THE SEA is still entertaining and educating tourists to the Florida Keys, and today you can actually swim with their dolphins.
It gives this writer of nostalgia a warm feeling to know that a long-time Florida attraction like this is still around.


Richard Hatch Transmedia Clip Now Live!
Of the several dozen transmedia clips Blade of Honor has to release over the next few weeks, we chose our first example of the VLOGs of the cast to be from our dear friend Richard Hatch.
Blade of Honor has many amazing performances in it from such incredible and well-known actors as Tim Russ (Star Trek: Voyager), Aron Eisenberg (Star Trek: Deep Space 9) and James Kyson (Heroes), but none are more important than the one that Richard gave us as Fleet Admiral John DiCarrek.
His performance as the two-faced Admiral is his last before he left us five weeks later from the complications of cancer. Richard loved the sci-fi community and its fans. Blade of Honor was his legacy to them; his last great gift to all of us, and we, the crew and producers of Blade of Honor, are honored to be able to present his incredible performances to you all over the next few weeks.
This is the first of many of his "entries" to the ship's computer of the USS Hermes. We hope you enjoy them all as we have.
Blade of Honor is delivering its episodes in a novel way: by taking all of the exposition out of the episodes themselves and inserting them all into transmedia clips which span the rich world and lives of the characters of the series.
Kenneth Dixon Joins the Revolution!
The Blade of Honor Screening Has Arrived!
James High on Episode 1 of Blade of Honor Fully Funded on Kickstarter!
production on Blade of Honor Kickstarter: May 11th!
CJ Schepers on Blade of Honor Kickstarter: May 11th!
Blade of Honor Transmedia Content Teaser now here!
© 2015 LEM Media Productions. Powered by: Brainiac Networks.


text:
Search results for "Arun Vijay"
Sinam (2022) Hindi Dubbed
Sub-inspector Pari Venkat faces a huge tragedy putting him on an investigation to seek revenge.
Genre: Action, Crime, South Special, Thriller
Yaanai (2022) Hindi Dubbed
A brash young man tries to prevent his wealthy, large family from being split up by their arch-nemesis, who wants to avenge his brother's death, which he blames on the…
Genre: Action, South Special, Thriller
Tamilrockerz (2022) Season 1 (SonyLIV Original)
Anonymous cyber pirates are threatening to release a highly anticipated film featuring a massively popular star. It's up to the cop Rudra to find the lawbreakers and bring them to…
Genre: Action, Crime, Drama, Web Series
Phir Aaya Jigarbaaz (Thadaiyara Thaakka) (2012) Hindi Dubbed
Selva (Arun Vijay) owns a travel agency in Chennai. He dreams to make it big in life and is all set to marry his lover Priya (Mamta Mohandas). The city…
Oh My Dog (2022) Hindi Dubbed
A school kid rescues a blind Siberian Husky to prove its worth to the outside world where it was neglected.
Genre: Drama, Dual Audio, Family
Mafia: Chapter 1 (2020) Hindi dubbed
A narcotics officer engages in a cat-and-mouse chase to capture a powerful criminal kingpin.
Genre: Action, Drama, Dual Audio
Saaho (2019)
A battle for power ensues as warring gangters thrive to gain possession of a "black box" that can make them richer than they already are, and an undercover cop intervenes…
Genre: Action, Bollywood, Crime, Drama, Thriller
Thadam (2019) Hindi Dubbed
The murder of a youngster creates confusion among a few cops when they find out that the one accused in the crime has a look-alike!
Genre: Action, Crime, Drama, South Special, Thriller
Chekka Chivantha Vaanam (2018) Hindi Dubbed
A bloody power struggle erupts between three brothers who are vying to take over the family business following the death of their father.
Kuttram 23 (2017) Hindi Dubbed
A case involving the disappearance of a pregnant woman turns into a personal one for the cop who is tasked with investigating it.
Bruce Lee – The Fighter (2015)
When a stuntman is mistaken for a police officer, he begins fighting crime.
Genre: Action, Drama, Romance, South Special
Chakravyuha (2016)
A corrupt law minister incites violence in a law college and the police turn a blind eye. Lohith, a college student, turns into a vigilante and tries to punish the…
Chekka Chivantha Vaanam (2018)


I wasn't having any luck running a windows program with wine or play on linux. I came across another program called crossover. I had a little trouble getting it loaded however it worked perfectly and I wanted to share that info. The only downfall is it's not freeware. There is a 14 day free trial. Anyone else have any experience with this program?
I tried it some time ago to use the latest version (at that time) of sketchup and it did work quite well although like you say it is not free and I decided to find alternative ways to achieve what I wanted.
I think it could be very useful to those users wanting to convert to Linux but need that certain piece of software that is not yet available for Linux or there is not a good enough Linux equivalent. It did do what it claimed though so definitely worth considering for using Windows software on the Linux platform.


Since seeing this kimono on Jess from Velvet Daisy and Sara from Waiste, I've decided that I would really like it! I need a few kimono/cape type jackets as it's too hot to wear a leather or denim jacket, but it's too cold to wear nothing, and this looked so lovely on those girlies!
I really love the ram print of these leggings. I wear leggings quite alot as they're so comfy and easy to wear to uni, and these look really comfy but have a little bit of character to them!
I have very nearly come to the end of my current 'Lady Danger' lippy and it is definitely my favourite lipstick colour ever! It's a really bright red, the kind you would imagine as a pin-up red, and I love it!
I currently only have the Real Techniques foundation brush, and I really want to get myself some extra brushes to add to my collection! I'm thinking either the whole Core Collection which includes the buffing brush, or maybe just getting the buffing brush on it's own for now.
How lovely is this ring?! I entered a giveaway by Dixi on twitter this week, and since entering I've really fallen in love with this ring, and then today I was tweeted to say I was picked as the winner, and I can't wait to receive it!
What's your favorite thing from my wishlist?
What's been on your wishlist this week?
I hope you feel better soon :) I love those shoes, they'd look great in red.


Volunteers shelter in a tornado safe room during the third tornado warning of the day for the immediate area.
Hundreds of experienced American Red Cross volunteers and employees are working around the clock to provide shelter and supplies to Gulf Coast residents affected by Harvey. The Red Cross appreciates the overwhelming interest of the public to volunteer. Please be patient--with the tremendous outpouring of support we are seeing, it will take some time to reach out to all those who have signed up to volunteer. Please also remember that, when connecting with the Red Cross or other volunteer groups, check first to learn about current opportunities and when volunteers are needed—before traveling to the affected areas independently. Access to relief operation areas is extremely difficult and search and rescue efforts are still ongoing.
The safety of the people we serve and the volunteers who help them is of utmost importance. We have procedures in place to track who is volunteering for the Red Cross to help keep people safe. This includes running a background check on all volunteers who will work directly with the people who turn to us for help or have access to funds. Volunteers also sign an agreement to abide by our code of ethics and conduct.
The Red Cross has launched a massive response to this devastating storm and needs financial donations to be able to provide immediate disaster relief. Help people affected by Hurricane Harvey by visiting redcross.org, calling 1- 800-RED CROSS or texting the word HARVEY to 90999 to make a $10 donation. Your donations enable the Red Cross to prepare for, respond to and help people recover from this disaster.


Access to CEDA datasets and services varies across the archive. Please read the following before you proceed.
Public datasets and services can be accessed through the data centre website (via http) without registration, but a CEDA account will be needed to access via the CEDA FTP server.
Datasets and services for Registered Users: some additional datasets and services will be available to any registered CEDA user.
Restricted datasets and services are limited to those who meet dataset or service specific criteria and are marked with an "apply for access" link. A user will first need to register as a CEDA user and then apply for the specific resource.
The Dataset index lists all CEDA dataset holdings and indicates which ones are open access, available to registered users or if further restrictions apply.


Upside Down Car Loan - 7 Things You Need To Know!
Upside Down Car Loan – 7 Things You Need To Know!
If you are looking to trade in your current car to receive the best car loan rates it's important to know whether you will have negative equity after the trade in. This happens when you turn in your older car for a newer one and the loan is more than what the car is worth. It is also commonly referred to as an upside down car loan.
If you are thinking of doing an upside down car loan, here are seven things you need to know.
1.	The first is you should consider other alternatives. If your current vehicle is in great shape there is no reason to trade it in for another. When you think about the all the money you could save by not having to make a car payment it makes since not to sign another long term commitment.
2.	When trading in your car you will want to minimize the amount of money carried over to the next loan. You can do this by understanding how much you still owe on the trade in vehicle and how much it's worth. Then, you can bring an additional downpayment to the table to offset some of that difference.
3.	When considering an upside down car loan do not buy a new car. New vehicles depreciate by 20% the minute you drive them off the lot. In turn, this means you will have a new loan where you may be paying a substantial amount more than what the car is worth. If that vehicle ever becomes repossessed you could pay through the nose in the deficiency balance.
4.	If you do decide to do an upside down car loan, shop around. Often times you can find the best prices through the internet. Online car loans are also convenient as after you receive approval they can send you a blank check, which you would take to the dealership for purchase.
5.	Moreover, your local credit union is a great place to receive financing. They help people from all backgrounds and they often have better rates than online or big banks. Further, for people looking for a car loan with bad credit, they might be the best option for you.
6.	When shopping for your next vehicle, research your local dealers for any trade in specials. Sometimes they may offer an additional amount for trade ins over their Kelly Blue Book value. This can help as it would lower the amount carried over to the next loan. If you find a dealer that is offering this, make sure to contact them and see what the requirements are as not all vehicles will qualify.
7.	Lastly, when signing your new loan make sure you read all of your documents carefully. This will help you see everything from your interest rate to whether there is a prepayment penalty if you pay the loan off early. Additionally, request a car loan amortization schedule as it can help you see how much of each payment goes to principal and interest through the life of the loan.


text:
Self-Reliant Older Baby Boomers Are Now Better Connected to Goods, Services, and Care
By Stephen M. Golant
It is fair to surmise that the 100,000 young people in their late teens and twenties who converged in San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury neighborhood to participate in the 1967 Summer of Love were not especially tuned in to how their grandparents were coping with getting old. It is even less likely that these young baby boomers thought much about their own old age. This socially rebellious group, which rejected middle-class values and parental controls, and who romanticized communal living, could hardly imagine that in their old age they would end up living in cul-de-sac suburbs and traveling in their cars to regional malls to buy furnishings for their single-family detached dwellings.
With their anti-government sentiments, they could hardly have foreseen how important Social Security and Medicare would become for their future health and financial well-being. Yet perhaps they were well-advised not to look to their grandparents as exemplars on how to live in old age. If they had been aware in the late 1960s of the challenges of dealing with old age, they may well have carried signs calling for "no more nursing homes for the old."
Fast forward five decades, and these now aging baby boomers are still showing their independent spirits. They are opting to age in place for as long as possible, even as these residential decisions clash with the opinions of many experts who argue that the baby boomers' current dwellings are designed for the young and are unequipped to accommodate those individuals who suffer from physical and activity limitations, chronic health problems, and social losses.
Two overarching factors help explain this reluctance of older baby boomers to move to different housing or care arrangements (Golant, 2015a). First, the aging-in-place realities of older baby boomers remind us that they are members of a generation that will more actively strive to maintain their autonomy and to control both their lives and environments. Second, compared with previous generations of older adults, they benefit from greater private- and public-sector opportunities, making it possible for them to exercise their individual agency.
Consequently, these baby boomers will have more ways to connect with those goods, services, and care arrangements that enable them to maintain their independent households (Arieff, 2017). To highlight these adaptive advantages, this article examines how the current opportunities to connect for people ages 65 and older in the United States compare with those available to their grandparents' generation in the 1970s.
Evolving Societal Views and Developmental Theory
By the 1970s, the academic community had abandoned its view of aging as a process of voluntary and inevitable disengagement and was less likely to negatively stereotype older people as inactive, frail, and unproductive members of society (Hochschild, 1975). Ageist societal attitudes were slow to change, however. The general public, marketing professionals, the media, and policy makers still viewed older people as a group with debilitating limitations who contributed little to contemporary society (Achenbaum, 1978; Butler, 1975). As a poignant example, local government leaders in St. Petersburg, Florida, tried to reduce their retirement community's negative image by removing park benches to lower the visibility of their older population (Butler, 1975).
A widely quoted national study, Gauging Aging, from the FrameWorks Institute (Frame-Works Institute, 2015), suggests we have made little progress. It reports that the U.S. public still associates aging with decline, deterioration, and a loss of control (Robbins, 2015). However, there are many reasons to believe that today's generation of aging baby boomers are redefining this conception of getting old. If how the marketing community portrayed them when they were younger holds true today, they are composed of individuals with strong self-reliant values who believe in their own ability to get things done. As two leading analysts from Yankelovich Partners, a world-famous research firm, summarized:
Boomers want to be on top and in charge. They believe they know best, and they act independently based on this self-confidence. They are unafraid to act as individuals abiding by none of the old rules, and they feel no lack of education or self-esteem to steer their own course . . . . Boomers always will remain control-oriented (Smith and Clurman, 1997).
And these individual expressions are reinforced by current societal prescriptions on how to age successfully. Echoing the influential Rowe and Kahn directives of the late 1980s, older baby boomers today are told that they must proactively take care of their bodies to prevent disease, maintain high physical and mental functioning, and keep actively engaged with life. Moreover, they receive the hopeful message that it is never too late for them to cope with their problems because "the frailty of older age is largely reversible" (Rowe and Kahn, 1998). As a consequence, today's 63 million late middle-age baby boomers (ages 50 to 64) and 16 million older baby boomers (more than a third of today's ages 65-and-older population) are deluged by communications from professionals and the media telling them how to take better care of their health. They are counseled not only about the importance of health checkups, falls prevention strategies, eating right, and exercising, but also about the benefits of volunteering, Botox treatments, and Viagra supplements (Golant, 2008).
Human developmental theory also supports this program for self-improvement. It argues that older individuals who age successfully are motivated to initiate coping strategies that enable them to "to explore and shape their environments to fit their particular needs" (Schulz and Heckhausen, 1996). Consequently, when confronted with stressful or incongruent individual or environmental circumstances, they initiate adaptive efforts designed to eliminate or blunt their adverse outcomes. These "preventive, corrective, or optimizing" actions (Brandtstädter and Rothermund, 2002) make it possible for them to realize their aspirations and goals and to feel again in control of their bodies, activities, and surroundings.
Older people, however, do not just respond to these intrapersonal motivational influences. Environmental gerontologists and occupational therapists (Scheidt and Windley, 2006; Verbrugge and Jette, 1994) have long argued that for older adults "to remain healthy and maintain high levels of independence and function" they must benefit from "the right contextual and social supports" (Robbins, 2015).
These experts believe that older people can compensate for their physical, sensory, and cognitive limitations if they occupy and transact with environments through supportive physical and social resources, such as assistive devices, sensitively designed buildings and products, barrier-free transportation, and caring family members and professionals (Verbrugge and Jette, 1994). My theory of "residential normalcy" similarly argued that when older people have stronger coping repertoires or opportunities—when they can take advantage of viable and effective strategies to change their incongruent living environments—they feel more competent, in control, and empowered (Golant, 2011, 2015b). For example, when older people with physical limitations can avail themselves of affordable homecare or corrective home modifications (coping opportunities), they no longer feel helpless and vulnerable in their homes and feel they have achieved residential normalcy.
Controlling Their Lives and Environments
Tenacious aging-in-place behaviors of older persons are one manifestation of their quest for autonomy. The historical patterns of their living arrangements tell the story. Between 2015 and 2016, only 3.2 percent of the ages 65 and older population moved from their dwellings (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016a), whereas in a comparable one-year period, from 1970 to 1971, 9 percent of this older group made these residential shifts (Hobbs, Stoops, and U.S. Census Bureau, 2002; U.S. Census Bureau, 1973, 2015). About 78 percent of today's older adults own their dwellings, compared to only 68 percent of yesterday's elders (U.S. Census Bureau News, 2016). This is important because homeowners are especially likely to age in place, and today only 1.6 percent move annually.
Today's older adults are also less inclined to share their dwellings with persons other than their spouses because such arrangements would threaten their privacy and restrict their activities. In 2015, only 10 percent of older males and 19 percent of older females lived with other relatives or unrelated persons. The respective rates in 1970 were a much higher 16 percent and 31 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 1973). Older persons have particularly rejected transitioning to nursing homes to receive long-term care—where they arguably have the least control over their environments. In 2014, only 2.4 percent of persons ages 65 and older occupied these institutions, compared with 5.4 percent in 1973, even as higher numbers and shares of today's older adults are in their 80s and 90s (Harris-Kojetin et al., 2016).
Accessing goods, services, and care by auto and transit
How do today's older adults who age in place usually access their everyday needs? Compared with earlier generations, they are more likely to have the flexibility of traveling to destinations in their cars (as drivers or passengers). They make only a bit more than 1 percent of their daily trips by transit (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2012). In 2014, 94 percent of males, ages 60 to 69, and 89 percent of females, ages 60 to 69, were licensed to drive (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2014). The respective licensing rates of older persons in 1970 were a substantially lower 82 percent and 42 percent (Gish, 1973), revealing the especially limited travel mobility of older women. This much larger gender gap resulted from these earlier generations of women never learning how to drive. Older adults in the 1970s also had more difficulty owning and driving cars because they were substantially poorer. About 25 percent were below the 100 percent poverty threshold, compared to just less than 9 percent of today's (2015) population that is ages 65 and older (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016b).
In part, the different travel behaviors of today's older adults reflect where they live. In 2014, about 53 percent lived in the auto-oriented metropolitan suburbs, and another 20 percent lived in rural counties. Only 27 percent lived in the higher density core urban areas of the United States, where they have more opportunities to reach businesses and services by walking or taking public transit (HHS, AOA, 2015). Demographers predict that our future older baby boomers will be even more likely to occupy suburban locales. In contrast, a higher share of our 1970s older population (33 percent)—especially minorities and those with lower incomes—lived in the commercially oriented and population-dense inner cities, which blunted the disadvantages of their lower driving rates (U.S. Census Bureau, 1984; U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging, 1972a). But it was also unfortunately true that these older persons often occupied socially and physically inhospitable neighborhoods and fear of crime was a pervasive concern (Bild and Havighurst, 1976). As Birren (1970) perceptively observed: "Paradoxically, it is in the most deteriorated areas of cities that aged persons may live independent lives, piecing together for themselves the combinations of needed services."
When older people in the 1970s suffered from physical limitations, their mobility also was restricted because they had to navigate a built environment plagued with pervasive architectural, walking, and transit-use barriers. It was only with the passage of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 that these obstacles began to be eliminated and public transit authorities were required to offer home-to-bus stop paratransit service.
Looking to the future, this mobility gap is likely to widen further because older baby boomers will enjoy further transportation advantages. The private sector is equipping autos with technology (e.g., automatic braking and lane-departure warnings) that make driving less restrictive and safer for those with cognitive and physical deficits. Older people also are benefiting from ride-sharing vendors such as Uber and Lyft, which sometimes offer subsidized fares. This assumes older adults, providers, caregivers, or community organizations can text them with their smartphones (Watkins, 2015). More dramatically, older baby boomers who age in place will especially benefit if driverless cars dominate our transportation future.
Access to long-term services and supports
Older baby boomers will also be better able to cope with their health problems and physical limitations without relocating to more supportive care settings. Today's elders now benefit from an extensive and fast-growing infrastructure of homecare services staffed by rehab professionals, and home health and personal care aides who help them recuperate from a hospital stay or receive long-term assistance with performing their self-care and homemaking activities. The hope is that this formal care will help compensate for the expected future decline in the availability of their family caregivers. The higher incomes of today's older adults certainly make it easier for them to access these paid care resources, but three federal programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Older Americans Act, also have helped to make the dwellings occupied by lower income older people function as much like care settings as they are places to live.
Although these government programs were initiated in the mid-1960s, in their earlier and formative stages they offered far more limited offerings to our 1970s older population. Medicare (Part A) had allowed hospitals to offer homecare to older adults discharged from a hospital stay, but initial eligibility criteria were restrictive. In 1971, less than 1 percent of Medicare expenditures went to home healthcare and only about 2,200 home health agencies were in operation in the United States (U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging, 1972b). In comparison, in 2014 there were more than 12,000 Medicare home health agencies offering intermittent skilled nursing and therapy (speech, physical, and occupational) services to 4 million older people (Harris-Kojetin et al., 2016; Landers et al., 2016).
Initially, almost all the long-term-care services offered by the Medicaid program targeting very poor and medically needy older adults were delivered in skilled nursing home care facilities. Only after 1981, with the passing of the Section 1915(c) waiver option, did state Medicaid programs opt to deliver these services into the homes of older adults. The 1999 U.S. Supreme Court Olmstead v. L.C. decision was a further stimulus. Because of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the court ruled it was unconstitutional to institutionalize persons in nursing homes if states could reasonably accommodate them in less restrictive community-based settings. By 2014, Medicaid was spending more than 53 percent of its long-term-care budget on home- and community-based services, although some states still have a nursing home funding bias (Eiken et al., 2016).
Services funded by the Older Americans Act today inform millions of lower income older people about their care options, offer them hot meals, homemaker and chore assistance, and demand-responsive transportation rides. But as initially passed, the reach of this program to older clients was far more limited and only substantially expanded after major legislative changes. In 1975, it funded only about 49 million meals, including 5 million home-delivered meals and 44 million congregate meals (Wellman, Rosenzweig, and Lloyd, 2002). In contrast, by 2013, it was funding 218 million meals, including 138 million home-delivered meals and 80.3 million congregate meals—a magnitude of change considerably greater than the doubling in size of the ages 60 and older population over this period (Colello and Napili, 2016).
The recognition that older persons who are aging in place could also benefit from community-based centers to help them monitor, manage, and care for their chronic health problems and their physical and cognitive limitations also led to the development of adult day services. Today, there are 4,800 adult day services centers in the United States, offering assistance to a daily maximum of up to 289,400 participants (Harris-Kojetin et al., 2016). Although these care settings date from at least the early 1960s, they greatly expanded in number and capacity during the mid-1980s, mid-1990s, and early 2000s, spurred by greater funding opportunities from policy makers attempting to keep older persons out of nursing homes (MetLife Mature Market Institute, 2010).
We also have adopted new service-delivery strategies that no longer just focus on at-risk older persons. We now target geographically based residential enclaves of older persons in need of similar health-related and supportive services (Golant, Parsons, and Boling, 2010). Advocates argue that services can be delivered more effectively (financially and organizationally) to larger clusters or critical masses of community-based older people, sometimes referred to as naturally occurring retirement communities or NORCs (Vladeck et al., 2010).
This service delivery model dates from the mid-1980s when the Naturally Occurring Retirement Community-Supportive Service Program targeted a mega-block 2,800-unit co-op building in New York occupied by moderate-income older persons. Later, a comparable model was implemented in federally funded age-segregated apartment buildings where management hired service coordinators who matched vulnerable tenants to appropriate community services. A small share of these aging-in-place tenants also benefit from supportive and health-related services that are delivered into their buildings. More recently, several community leaders in the United States have initiated programs targeting their needy older populations, as exemplified by the 1999 AdvantAge Initiative, "Improving Communities for an Aging Society," created by the Visiting Nurse Service of New York and the 2006 World Health Organization's Global Age-Friendly Cities program (Golant, 2014). Since 2001, older residents living in NORCs have started neighborhood-based organizations, known as Elder Villages. They hire professionals, organize volunteers, and charge an annual fee so members may access a variety of social and recreational activities and vendors offering supportive services, often at discounted prices (Scharlach and Lehning, 2016).
The Big Connectivity Divide
Our digital economy has further widened the connectivity divide between 1970s elders and aging baby boomers. In 2015, 58 percent of people ages 65 and older used the Internet, compared with 14 percent in 2000 (Perrin and Duggan, 2015) and those numbers are trending upward. Consequently, all manner of information, goods, and services can be requested online and delivered to the homes of older people—including books, music, pharmacy items, and household supplies. They can perform all their banking activities without leaving their dwellings—from receiving their Social Security checks to making deposits. As a stark comparison, in the 1970s, 6 million older people lacked a telephone (Butler, 1975).
But the best is yet to come. New technologies referred to by labels such as gerontechnology, smart homes, telehealth, and telemedicine offer the promise that our older baby boomers will be able to track their physiological functions, health status, mobility, dwelling functions, and physical and social activities in the comfort of their homes. Wireless sensor devices inserted in their bodies and clothing and on the walls, floors, ceilings, furniture, and appliances of their homes will transmit this information to remote monitoring stations. When devices detect outcomes that deviate from some designated norm, they will trigger interventions by family members or trained professionals (Lee and Coughlin, 2015).
These technological advances will unquestionably make it much easier for baby boomers in the future to manage their health and well-being without leaving their homes, and to feel more in control of their lives and environments. They may, however, have to confront an unintended downside. Even as these technologies will make connected baby boomers more efficient at accessing once-remote and distant goods, care, and services, they may experience an unfortunate tradeoff, a decline in the frequency and quality of their relationships with people. Tomorrow's older baby boomers may end up being one of the most physically isolated generations.
Although it focuses on only a few cohort and societal indicators, this article argues that compared to earlier generations of older people, self-reliant aging baby boomers will be more connected to the goods, care, and services that enable them to age in place longer and more autonomously. It is important, however, not to draw unwarranted conclusions from these trends. It will be another decade before the majority of today's baby boomers will be in their mid-60s or older, so despite optimistic predictions, their future connectivity opportunities cannot be certain. Even more importantly, although the trajectory of change is unquestionably favorable, sizable numbers of today's older adults still experience challenging connectivity barriers that make independent living impossible or dangerous (Golant, 2008).
Who are these older individuals and will they be more visible in the future? They are obviously not the very wealthy, who can easily afford to access a full complement of goods, services, and care offered by the private sector. Nor are they mainly the very poor, who can take advantage of a variety of need-based social programs, albeit not easily and often only after long waiting periods. Rather, these deprived older adults are those with middle incomes, who are not rich enough to afford the long-term-care alternatives offered by the private sector, but not poor enough to qualify for this country's social safety net programs. Their numbers will explosively increase in the 2020s and 2030s, when the older baby boomers in this country become top heavy with those in their 70s and 80s—those most at risk of experiencing connectivity challenges. If our current age-based entitlement programs become exclusively needs-based, the number of our disadvantaged older adults will become overwhelmingly larger.
Stephen M. Golant, Ph.D., is a professor of Geography at the University of Florida, in Gainesville. He can be reached at golant@ufl.edu.
Achenbaum, W. A. 1978. Old Age in the New Land: The American Experience Since 1790. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2012. Keeping Baby Boomers Mobile: Preserving the Mobility and Safety of Older Americans. Washington, DC. Retrieved November 2, 2016.
Arieff, A. 2017. "A Housing Crisis for Seniors." The New York Times, January 28. Retrieved March 9, 2017.
Bild, B., and Havighurst, R. 1976. "Senior Citizens in Great Cities: The Case of Chicago." The Gerontologist 16(1 Part 2): 4.
Birren, J. E. 1970. "The Abuse of the Urban Aged." Psychology Today 3(10): 37–8.
Brandtstädter, J., and Rothermund, K. 2002. "The Life-course Dynamics of Goal Pursuit and Goal Adjustment: A Two-process Framework." Developmental Review 22(1): 117–50.
Butler, R. N. 1975. Why Survive? Being Old in America. New York: Harper & Row.
Colello, K. J., and Napili, A. 2016. Older Americans Act: Background and Overview. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Eiken, S., et al. 2016. Medicaid Expenditures for Long-Term Services and Supports (LTSS) in FY 2014. Ann Arbor, MI: Truven Health Analytics.
FrameWorks Institute. 2015. Gauging Aging: Mapping the Gaps Between Expert and Public Understandings of Aging in America. Retrieved May 1, 2017.
Gish, R. E. 1973. Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
Golant, S. M. 2008. "Commentary: Irrational Exuberance for the Aging in Place of Vulnerable Low-income Older Homeowners." Journal of Aging and Social Policy 20(4): 379–97.
Golant, S. M. 2011. "The Quest for Residential Normalcy by Older Adults: Relocation but One Pathway." Journal of Aging Studies 25(3): 193–205.
Golant, S. M. 2014. Age-Friendly Communities: Are We Expecting Too Much? IRPP Insight, February 2014, No. 5. Montreal, QC, CA: Institute for Research on Public Policy.
Golant, S. M. 2015a. Aging in the Right Place. Baltimore, MD: Health Professions Press.
Golant, S. M. 2015b. "Residential Normalcy and the Enriched Coping Repertoires of Successfully Aging Older Adults." The Gerontologist 55(1): 70–82.
Golant, S. M., Parsons, P., and Boling, P. A. 2010. "Assessing the Quality of Care Found in Affordable Clustered Housing-care Arrangements: Key to Informing Public Policy." Cityscape 12(2): 5–28.
Harris-Kojetin, L., et al. 2016. Long-Term Providers and Services Users in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Hobbs, F., Stoops, N., and U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. Census 2000 Special Reports, Series CENSR-4, Demographic Trends in the 20th Century. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Hochschild, A. R. 1975. "Disengagement Theory: A Critique and Proposal." American Sociological Review 40(5): 553–69.
Landers, S., et al. 2016. "The Future of Home Health Care: A Strategic Framework for Optimizing Value." Home Health Care Management & Practice 28(4): 262–78.
Lee, C., and Coughlin, J. F. 2015. "Perspective: Older Adults' Adoption of Technology: An Integrated Approach to Identifying Determinants and Barriers." Journal of Product Innovation Management 32(5): 747–59.
MetLife Mature Market Institute. 2010. The MetLife National Study of Adult Day Services. Westport, CT: MetLife Mature Market Institute.
Perrin, A., and Duggan, M. 2015. Americans' Internet Access: 2000–2015. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
Robbins, L. A. 2015. "Gauging Aging: How Does the American Public Truly Perceive Older Age—and Older People?" Generations 39(3): 17–21.
Rowe, J. W., and Kahn, R. L. 1998. Successful Aging. New York: Pantheon.
Scharlach, A. E., and Lehning, A. J. 2016. Creating Aging-Friendly Communities. New York: Oxford University Press.
Scheidt, R. J., and Windley, P. G. 2006. "Environmental Gerontology: Progress in the Post-Lawton Era." In J. Birren and K. Warner Schaie, eds., Handbook of the Psychology of Aging. New York: Academic Press.
Schulz, R., and Heckhausen, J. 1996. "A Life Span Model of Successful Aging." American Psychologist 51(7): 702–14.
Smith, J. W., and Clurman, A. 1997. Rocking the Ages: The Yankelovich Report on Generational Marketing. New York: HarperCollins.
U.S. Census Bureau. 1973. Current Population Reports, Series P-23 No. 43, Some Demographic Aspects of Aging in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Census Bureau. 1984. Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 138: Demographic and Socioeconomic Aspects of Aging in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. Geographical Mobility: 2014 to 2015: Table 6. Retrieved November 2, 2016.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2016a. Geographical Mobility: 2015 to 2016: Table 6. General Mobility, by Age and Tenure: 2015 to 2016. Retrieved November 2, 2016.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2016b. Historical Poverty Tables: People and Families—1959 to 2015. Retrieved November 2, 2016.
U.S. Census Bureau News. 2016. Residential Vacancies and Homeownership in the Second Quarter 2016. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration on Aging (AOA). 2015. A Profile of Older Americans, 2015. Washington, DC: HHS, AOA.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 2014. Drivers and Driver Licensing. Retrieved November 2, 2016.
U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging. 1972a. Developments in Aging: 1971 and January-March 1972. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging. 1972b. Home Health Services in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Verbrugge, L. M., and Jette, A. M. 1994. "The Disablement Process." Social Science & Medicine 38(1): 1–14.
Vladeck, F., et al. 2010. "Health Indicators: A Proactive and Systematic Approach to Healthy Aging." Cityscape 12(2): 67–84.
Watkins, M. 2015. "City Hopes to Use Uber to Give Rides to Seniors." The Gainesville Sun, June 4. Retrieved November 2, 2016.
Wellman, N. S., Rosenzweig, L. Y., and Lloyd, J. L. 2002. "Thirty Years of the Older Americans Nutrition Program." Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 102(3): 348.
Editor's Note: This article is taken from the Summer 2017 issue of ASA's quarterly journal, Generations, an issue devoted to the topic "Aging and Oral Health." ASA members receive Generations as a membership benefit; non-members may purchase subscriptions or single copies of issues at our online store. Full digital access to current and back issues of Generations is also available (and free of charge to ASA members and Generations subscribers) at Ingenta Connect.
Order Generations | Subscribe to Generations
RLowe's Blog


Aaron Hatsuo Oshiro, 50, of Aiea, a waiter, died in St. Francis Hospice West. He was born in Honolulu. He is survived by daughter Amy; mother Sally Matsumoto; stepfather Hisashi Matsumoto; sisters Lorene Higa and Liane Tanigawa; stepbrothers Dr. Bryan, Dr. Roy and Guy Matsumoto; and stepsisters Joy Tanji and Gwen Kojima. Private services. No monetary offerings. Condolences may be sent to: iamsam@hawaiiantel.net.


Below are the style of the month plans for club meetings including plans for each Best of Meeting competition. If you would like to host a commercial tasting for any given month, contact Dean Sussman at [email protected] to volunteer. Months that have club parties ( holiday and summer ) do not have a style of the month as there is no meeting.
*The club's summer party will be held in July 2019. No styles of the month will be designated.
**The club's holiday party will be held in December 2019. No styles of the month will be designated.
***Volunteers for commercial tastings are encouraged to interpret the categories broadly. For example, for the "Czech Lager" category, the beers need not be produced in the Czech Republic; an American-made "Czech-style pilsner" beer would be an excellent choice. In addition, the club strongly encourages volunteers for commercial tastings to offer samples from (and support!) our local breweries.